I know you're kinda taking a beating here but I gotta jump in yet again.

We are once again not treating the problem but trying to once again cover our @$$e$ on the back side. I understand trying to minimize the financial burden people's choices place on the rest of us but by doing so we take away the need for people to take responsibility for their own actions. In a perfect world someone makes a mistake and ends up getting pregnant on accident. They receive help either with an abortion or possibly with government funds to help with the child and they learn their lesson and go on to put in the best effort they can and move on with their lives and actually try to provide for themselves. In our world(i.e. reality) these people use these things as a way to either not take responsibility for their own actions or to take advantage of the system that was originally set up to help people truly in need that are willing to actually help themselves and make better choices in the future. I don't think someone should be "punished" for the rest of their lives for making one bad decision but the reality is we are being punished repeatedly for those that continually make poor choices and could care less. If you always had someone or something to fall back on then what is the incentive to do the right thing?? Obviously morals and integrity are a thing of the past for most people so the only thing left, and I'm sorry to have to say it this way, is punishment. People NEED to once again learn to take responsibility for their own actions and if parenting or religion isn't doing it then we need to find something that will.

And as for the fiasco of paying for birth control, while I would rather see that than abortions how do you justify forcing companies like Hobby Lobby to pay for something they do not believe in based on their religion. And don't come back to me with their employees don't have to believe in it because my response to that is then they don't have to work there either. You can't trade someone else's freedoms for another.........imo that is that absolute antipathy of true freedom.

Here is how I justify it. Corporations for whatever stupid reason are people. People have to pay taxes on crap they don't like all the time for the betterment of society... Hobby lobby is no different. If they don't want to pay taxes fine. Let em go out of business so someone who will pay taxes uses the free market to open a new Hobby store to fill the void. If they feel their religion is more important than their duty as citizens then fine... They have a choice to make.

But I thought our country was founded on freedoms which includes freedom of religion.......to choose freely, believe freely and to practice it freely?? So now you're telling me that our freedoms can be infringed upon if our politicians believe that limiting someones religious choices and beliefs will better our society as a whole?? So are our freedoms set up to be freedoms for individuals or only freedoms as a collective whole? And the choice you say they have to make is the difference between staying true to their beliefs or going against what they believe.........how is that truly religious freedom??? Obviously things in society change as time goes on which is very evident in the actions we see people take in today's world as opposed to years ago. But your description of the choice they have laid out in front of them IMO goes against exactly what this country was founded on. If we start to force people to go against what they believe then aren't we headed down a path that leads us right back to where we were before America was founded? And to add to that how is it that someone else's freedom to choose should be allowed to trump another's?? And in the case of Hobby Lobby I think it is clear. They run THEIR company in a way that they see fit based largely on their beliefs. Nobody is forced to go work at any of their stores so we are going to force the hand of Hobby Lobby in lue of just letting people choose to work somewhere else? Do you see my point here?? There are plenty of places for someone to go work without us having to trample on someone else's rights as an American whether it be a "corporation" or an individual.

Bunnyblaster

"You can't change the past but you can ruin the present by worrying about the future."

What school district do you work for?
Noting the time of some of your posts, I'm curious why you are posting on forums instead of doing your job "teaching" on the tax payers dime!

Matter of fact I am in Chemistry right now. My kids are using VSPER models to predict the polarity of molecules and compounds... We are using this information to create a periodic table of electronegativity to bring to the national science convention. Pretty neat stuff. My principal came in and took pictures yesterday and Monday we are presenting our initial findings to To UCM (University of Central Missouri).

Thanks for asking

But I also find time to post on my lunch break, prep hour, in between classes, tests, labs, etc...

I know you're kinda taking a beating here but I gotta jump in yet again.

We are once again not treating the problem but trying to once again cover our @$$e$ on the back side. I understand trying to minimize the financial burden people's choices place on the rest of us but by doing so we take away the need for people to take responsibility for their own actions. In a perfect world someone makes a mistake and ends up getting pregnant on accident. They receive help either with an abortion or possibly with government funds to help with the child and they learn their lesson and go on to put in the best effort they can and move on with their lives and actually try to provide for themselves. In our world(i.e. reality) these people use these things as a way to either not take responsibility for their own actions or to take advantage of the system that was originally set up to help people truly in need that are willing to actually help themselves and make better choices in the future. I don't think someone should be "punished" for the rest of their lives for making one bad decision but the reality is we are being punished repeatedly for those that continually make poor choices and could care less. If you always had someone or something to fall back on then what is the incentive to do the right thing?? Obviously morals and integrity are a thing of the past for most people so the only thing left, and I'm sorry to have to say it this way, is punishment. People NEED to once again learn to take responsibility for their own actions and if parenting or religion isn't doing it then we need to find something that will.

And as for the fiasco of paying for birth control, while I would rather see that than abortions how do you justify forcing companies like Hobby Lobby to pay for something they do not believe in based on their religion. And don't come back to me with their employees don't have to believe in it because my response to that is then they don't have to work there either. You can't trade someone else's freedoms for another.........imo that is that absolute antipathy of true freedom.

Here is how I justify it. Corporations for whatever stupid reason are people. People have to pay taxes on crap they don't like all the time for the betterment of society... Hobby lobby is no different. If they don't want to pay taxes fine. Let em go out of business so someone who will pay taxes uses the free market to open a new Hobby store to fill the void. If they feel their religion is more important than their duty as citizens then fine... They have a choice to make.

But I thought our country was founded on freedoms which includes freedom of religion.......to choose freely, believe freely and to practice it freely?? So now you're telling me that our freedoms can be infringed upon if our politicians believe that limiting someones religious choices and beliefs will better our society as a whole?? So are our freedoms set up to be freedoms for individuals or only freedoms as a collective whole? And the choice you say they have to make is the difference between staying true to their beliefs or going against what they believe.........how is that truly religious freedom??? Obviously things in society change as time goes on which is very evident in the actions we see people take in today's world as opposed to years ago. But your description of the choice they have laid out in front of them IMO goes against exactly what this country was founded on. If we start to force people to go against what they believe then aren't we headed down a path that leads us right back to where we were before America was founded? And to add to that how is it that someone else's freedom to choose should be allowed to trump another's?? And in the case of Hobby Lobby I think it is clear. They run THEIR company in a way that they see fit based largely on their beliefs. Nobody is forced to go work at any of their stores so we are going to force the hand of Hobby Lobby in lue of just letting people choose to work somewhere else? Do you see my point here?? There are plenty of places for someone to go work without us having to trample on someone else's rights as an American whether it be a "corporation" or an individual.

Yes, Bunny that is EXACTLY what I am saying bud.. We limit religious freedom ALL THE TIME.. Why do you thing Mormons are no longer polygamous and that Jehovah's Witness's are forced to let their kids have blood transfusions even though it is against their religion? We also don't let 12yr old kids be molested and reaped by old pervert men in the name of religion either.

Your freedom of religion (according to the constitution and how its been interpreted for 200 years) CANNOT infringe on someone else's rights as a non believer or person of different religious affiliation. If I was Muslim I have the LEGAL RIGHT to pray during my times even at work because its in the Koran. I would NOT be allowed to fire him because he is Muslim though just because he needs to pray. With Hobby Lobby they are infringing on the rights of their workers access to health care recommended by licensed doctors in the NAME of religion. That is where it becomes illegal.. The instant you force your beliefs on someone else or make them practice in the same way you do it stops being your religious freedom.

There is lots more detail to it than that but this is the basis of it... It would be like Walmart telling their employees they had to wash in holy water before coming to work..not as extreme but same thing nonetheless..

And what is the citizens duty to country, community, corporation, fellow citizens and self 5000. Is free loading at the will of government and expense of others one of their duties. Is expecting someone else to provide cover for their bad discisions or behavior one of their duties. Is offering no positive contrbution to society one of their duties. I could continue but my lunch break is about up and someone has to work.

While I understand what you are saying one of your examples causes harm to others and regardless of religion I will never agree to that so long as the person harmed isn't a willing participant. There has to be some common sense involved here too.........we cannot as people allow our children to be harmed. Also, in your examples it is government regulation that limits their freedoms not the actions of a private individuals. So it's ok for the government to regulate when, where and how we practice our religion but not individuals like Hobby Lobby? Also government regulations have penalties for those that choose to disobey............Hobby Lobby can enforce no penalty that I am aware of. So once again we are down to a personal choice.....do I have to work at Hobby Lobby or can I go work somewhere else? I also find it amusing that many people don't believe in and find it reprehensible that strip clubs are allowed to operate yet I see no one arguing that those people are having their employment options limited because they don't believe in working at a place like that. And especially if it's based on their religious beliefs then why does that not fall under the same category? It may be an extreme example but how is that any different? Bottom line is people have choices based on who and what they are. If they're religion which is still a freedom for now limits their own personal options then that's on them. It IS NOT for them to force change on someone else. And while I respect your opinion you can word it anyway you want but forcing their hand is not right no matter how you look at it.

And this is all besides the fact that I personally believe that unless you have a medical reason for contraception or abortion then you should be financially responsible for it yourself. Or go to a different employer to get the insurance coverage you require. Some cover it and some do not............you want it then make the personal choice to go find it..........same as the rest of us. I know sometimes it sucks for individual situations but you can't paint something like this with a broad brush without infringing on other people's rights. Sorry if you disagree but it's my opinion.

Bunnyblaster

"You can't change the past but you can ruin the present by worrying about the future."

Also, in your second paragraph you hit the nail on the head. But it has to work both ways so you can't say Hobby Lobby is infringing on individual's rights if they don't provide said insurance without saying the same in reverse if individuals force Hobby Lobby to provide for something that goes against their religion. Do you disagree??? IMO the only right way to handle it is for each to do as they believe and move on.

Bunnyblaster

"You can't change the past but you can ruin the present by worrying about the future."

Bunnyblaster wrote:Also, in your second paragraph you hit the nail on the head. But it has to work both ways so you can't say Hobby Lobby is infringing on individual's rights if they don't provide said insurance without saying the same in reverse if individuals force Hobby Lobby to provide for something that goes against their religion. Do you disagree??? IMO the only right way to handle it is for each to do as they believe and move on.

If hobby Lobby is a religion they MUST be a non profit organization... They are trying to have it both ways.. We are religious so we can't pay for Obama care but we want to make money hand over fist and don't want to be classified as a religious institution because we are a business. Fine, if they don't want to be a business that plays by the rules, lower your prices to next to nothing, stop making money for moneys sake and start a philanthropy.

That is the problem right there...If they enter the market place as a business then it is demanded of them to play by the rules the constitution and congress outlines. (taxing, for any reason deemed necessary by congress is part of the constitution)

Ya, the government is infringing on Hobby Lobby's rights because they are a BUSINESS... If they were a church or a non profit we wouldn't be having this discussion. And if you allow one loophole you have to let them all.. What if Walmart''s CEO decided he didn't believe in doctors... would we allow Walmart to stop carrying insurance to millions of people?

Birth Control pills literally cost less than 50 cents for a month for the cheapies if you don't add in all the extra taxes, doctor's fee's and all the other stuff.. If our government was smart they would manufacture them for that price and hand it out like candy. We would save so many billions of dollars it wouldn't be funny. instead, we refuse to provide it at all and then whine when those kids end u on welfare and we want them to starve to death.

I'd like to know when it happened that employers were required to offer health insurance, period? Employers started offering it to employees as an incentive to get people to work for them as opposed to their competition. They found they could get better group rates, and then split the cost with the employee. It's been said that if your employer offers health insurance, consider that to be worth $3-4/hr on top of your hourly rate. If you make $15/hr and have insurance, you actually make $19/hr. The policy of forcing companies to carry insurance smacks of facism in my book. It's a great incentive, but it should be voluntary. Otherwise, they can tell you "no insurance, but we will pay you extra so you can buy your own."

That in reality is what will happen with Obamacare. Companies will revolt in any way they can, i.e. cut everyone's hours to part-time, or stop hiring at employee #49, and you will buy your own insurance through an exchange.

Also, mo beagler, I'm glad you aren't teaching English Composition. I wasn't going to say anything, but having looked at ten pages of misspellings and grammatical errors that shouldn't occur beyond third grade, coupled with your general smugness of superiority, I feel compelled to mention it. It's "if I were Muslim," not "if I was Muslim." I can go back and red-pencil the rest of your posts if you'd like.

What school district do you work for?
Noting the time of some of your posts, I'm curious why you are posting on forums instead of doing your job "teaching" on the tax payers dime!

Matter of fact I am in Chemistry right now. My kids are using VSPER models to predict the polarity of molecules and compounds... We are using this information to create a periodic table of electronegativity to bring to the national science convention. Pretty neat stuff. My principal came in and took pictures yesterday and Monday we are presenting our initial findings to To UCM (University of Central Missouri).

Thanks for asking

But I also find time to post on my lunch break, prep hour, in between classes, tests, labs, etc...

My point exactly, you are being paid to teach chemistry by the taxpayers, not posting on a beagle board about politics.
The computer you are posting with is paid for by taxpayers for "teaching", not for personal use.

Again Bev you are correct, my benefits package runs my company about 20 thou a year maybe a little more. With insurance, 401K match, 12 paid holidays and 6 weeks of vacation, which they could do none of. People don't think about what they have til its gone or about to be gone. They also feel they should get whatever someone else has without any sacrifice or effort. I feel very fortunate.

Bunnyblaster wrote:Also, in your second paragraph you hit the nail on the head. But it has to work both ways so you can't say Hobby Lobby is infringing on individual's rights if they don't provide said insurance without saying the same in reverse if individuals force Hobby Lobby to provide for something that goes against their religion. Do you disagree??? IMO the only right way to handle it is for each to do as they believe and move on.

If hobby Lobby is a religion they MUST be a non profit organization... They are trying to have it both ways.. We are religious so we can't pay for Obama care but we want to make money hand over fist and don't want to be classified as a religious institution because we are a business. Fine, if they don't want to be a business that plays by the rules, lower your prices to next to nothing, stop making money for moneys sake and start a philanthropy.

That is the problem right there...If they enter the market place as a business then it is demanded of them to play by the rules the constitution and congress outlines. (taxing, for any reason deemed necessary by congress is part of the constitution)

Ya, the government is infringing on Hobby Lobby's rights because they are a BUSINESS... If they were a church or a non profit we wouldn't be having this discussion. And if you allow one loophole you have to let them all.. What if Walmart''s CEO decided he didn't believe in doctors... would we allow Walmart to stop carrying insurance to millions of people?

Birth Control pills literally cost less than 50 cents for a month for the cheapies if you don't add in all the extra taxes, doctor's fee's and all the other stuff.. If our government was smart they would manufacture them for that price and hand it out like candy. We would save so many billions of dollars it wouldn't be funny. instead, we refuse to provide it at all and then whine when those kids end u on welfare and we want them to starve to death.

And thank you for making my point. Government has no business getting involved with it in the first place. Once they start to require things that imo should be beyond the scope of their authority then it opens everything up to interpretation of what should and should not be included. Like I said I would be ok with it if it was medically necessary as some women do need them for medical reasons. But most want it just so they can have the sex without fear of the possible consequences. And as for your comment about Walmart saying they don't wanna pay if they decide they don't believe in doctors that is obviously absurd. Per the government how do you define a recognized religion?? And for that matter show me where the constitution stipulates that people can have religious beliefs and those should be respected as a freedom but for profit companies cannot.

Why is it so hard for you to understand.......it's their money, it's their business and so therefore it should be their choice. People pick and choose where they would like to apply for work based on all kinds of things so why not this? Companies either have to choose to have a religion or make money?? What kind of a choice is that?? You don't like it then don't work there is the way it should be. And I don't care how much birth control pills cost.......that's not the point for certain people. And I've bought birth control in the past.........granted it was a few years ago but it cost me a whole lot more than 50 cents a month!! I would have to assume if you could really get it without assistance for that much money then this would be a non-issue to begin with. I don't remember the young ladies name that was in college and raised a big stink about insurance companies not covering birth control but the number she used was also a whole lot more than the 50 cents you stated.

Bottom line there are a whole lot of reasons people could choose to want to or not want to work at any given company........just like the strip club I brought up. That goes against people's religious beliefs so do they have a gripe about how they can't work there too?

Bunnyblaster

"You can't change the past but you can ruin the present by worrying about the future."

Bunnyblaster wrote:Also, in your second paragraph you hit the nail on the head. But it has to work both ways so you can't say Hobby Lobby is infringing on individual's rights if they don't provide said insurance without saying the same in reverse if individuals force Hobby Lobby to provide for something that goes against their religion. Do you disagree??? IMO the only right way to handle it is for each to do as they believe and move on.

If hobby Lobby is a religion they MUST be a non profit organization... They are trying to have it both ways.. We are religious so we can't pay for Obama care but we want to make money hand over fist and don't want to be classified as a religious institution because we are a business. Fine, if they don't want to be a business that plays by the rules, lower your prices to next to nothing, stop making money for moneys sake and start a philanthropy.

That is the problem right there...If they enter the market place as a business then it is demanded of them to play by the rules the constitution and congress outlines. (taxing, for any reason deemed necessary by congress is part of the constitution)

Ya, the government is infringing on Hobby Lobby's rights because they are a BUSINESS... If they were a church or a non profit we wouldn't be having this discussion. And if you allow one loophole you have to let them all.. What if Walmart''s CEO decided he didn't believe in doctors... would we allow Walmart to stop carrying insurance to millions of people?

Birth Control pills literally cost less than 50 cents for a month for the cheapies if you don't add in all the extra taxes, doctor's fee's and all the other stuff.. If our government was smart they would manufacture them for that price and hand it out like candy. We would save so many billions of dollars it wouldn't be funny. instead, we refuse to provide it at all and then whine when those kids end u on welfare and we want them to starve to death.

And thank you for making my point. Government has no business getting involved with it in the first place. Once they start to require things that imo should be beyond the scope of their authority then it opens everything up to interpretation of what should and should not be included. Like I said I would be ok with it if it was medically necessary as some women do need them for medical reasons. But most want it just so they can have the sex without fear of the possible consequences. And as for your comment about Walmart saying they don't wanna pay if they decide they don't believe in doctors that is obviously absurd. Per the government how do you define a recognized religion?? And for that matter show me where the constitution stipulates that people can have religious beliefs and those should be respected as a freedom but for profit companies cannot.

Why is it so hard for you to understand.......it's their money, it's their business and so therefore it should be their choice. People pick and choose where they would like to apply for work based on all kinds of things so why not this? Companies either have to choose to have a religion or make money?? What kind of a choice is that?? You don't like it then don't work there is the way it should be. And I don't care how much birth control pills cost.......that's not the point for certain people. And I've bought birth control in the past.........granted it was a few years ago but it cost me a whole lot more than 50 cents a month!! I would have to assume if you could really get it without assistance for that much money then this would be a non-issue to begin with. I don't remember the young ladies name that was in college and raised a big stink about insurance companies not covering birth control but the number she used was also a whole lot more than the 50 cents you stated.

Bottom line there are a whole lot of reasons people could choose to want to or not want to work at any given company........just like the strip club I brought up. That goes against people's religious beliefs so do they have a gripe about how they can't work there too?

Because, bunny, if you let employers do anything they want they would pay workers absolutely nothing. Then they would get people in management who were racist and not hire black people because... well its my company that's why.. How can you say my example is absurd about Walmart? That is exactly what is happening with Hobby Lobby? And if you think my comment about racism just now was absurd, then you must have heard about Denny's a few years ago...
How quickly our society forgets about the gilded age and Robber Barons.. We grow up in this world and think hmm that don't make sense but most thinks in our country are a product of the bourgeois and the proletariat fights we have always had. Our laws requiring 40hr weeks and vacation pay and maternity leave were hard fought for. I am surprised at how quickly you think we ought to just give that back...

The government HAS to be involved to improve society in certain situations. The civil rights movement being one. You think Mississippi would have voluntarily let black people vote or sit at the front of the bus?

I see no difference in this issue. A religious company is going against a federal law to discriminate against women and the poor. That is what it happening. They are just using religion as a way to get out of spending money on their employees. It will be interesting to see if the SCOTUS upholds the law or strikes it down.

Bev wrote:I'd like to know when it happened that employers were required to offer health insurance, period? Employers started offering it to employees as an incentive to get people to work for them as opposed to their competition. They found they could get better group rates, and then split the cost with the employee. It's been said that if your employer offers health insurance, consider that to be worth $3-4/hr on top of your hourly rate. If you make $15/hr and have insurance, you actually make $19/hr. The policy of forcing companies to carry insurance smacks of facism in my book. It's a great incentive, but it should be voluntary. Otherwise, they can tell you "no insurance, but we will pay you extra so you can buy your own."

That in reality is what will happen with Obamacare. Companies will revolt in any way they can, i.e. cut everyone's hours to part-time, or stop hiring at employee #49, and you will buy your own insurance through an exchange.

Also, mo beagler, I'm glad you aren't teaching English Composition. I wasn't going to say anything, but having looked at ten pages of misspellings and grammatical errors that shouldn't occur beyond third grade, coupled with your general smugness of superiority, I feel compelled to mention it. It's "if I were Muslim," not "if I was Muslim." I can go back and red-pencil the rest of your posts if you'd like.

Amazing how low the bar of education has dropped.

It must really chap your hide that I am in education huh? That I hold 5 different teaching certificates and have a bachelor's degree, pastoral license and a double Master's... Wanna know something even more scary? I am also apart of the consortium on the Common Core State Standards initiative that is currently deciding WHAT your kids in over 30 states get taught for the next decade at least.